Moon - I made this point in another thread but I fell off my seat reading your comment. For 500 At Bats, a .300 average equates to 25 extra hits. Some of those by the law of averages would not only be extra base hits but they would produce some runs that a BB would not. Also, there have been only a handful of players in the history of baseball that have had .400 OBA with BA at or below .250 (M.Bishop in 1930, Mickey Tettleton with 97 BB in 339 official AB's, Gene Tenace with 124 BB in 420 official At bats. If someone had 450 official PA and a .250 average they would have 113 hits. For that player to have a .400 OBA average, they would need 112 BB's to get up to a .400 OBA. That would mean they would have the same number of Walks as hits. Most guys in the history of baseball (99%+) who have OBA of .400 have very high batting averages.

Moon - I made this point in another thread but I fell off my seat reading your comment. For 500 At Bats, a .300 average equates to 25 extra hits. Some of those by the law of averages would not only be extra base hits but they would produce some runs that a BB would not. Also, there have been only a handful of players in the history of baseball that have had .400 OBA with BA at or below .250 (M.Bishop in 1930, Mickey Tettleton with 97 BB in 339 official AB's, Gene Tenace with 124 BB in 420 official At bats. If someone had 450 official PA and a .250 average they would have 113 hits. For that player to have a .400 OBA average, they would need 112 BB's to get up to a .400 OBA. That would mean they would have the same number of Walks as hits. Most guys in the history of baseball (99%+) who have OBA of .400 have very high batting averages.

You may want to buy a new seat, but I'm sure you'll check it first to make sure nobody puts a tack on it.

Moon - I made this point in another thread but I fell off my seat reading your comment. For 500 At Bats, a .300 average equates to 25 extra hits. Some of those by the law of averages would not only be extra base hits but they would produce some runs that a BB would not. Also, there have been only a handful of players in the history of baseball that have had .400 OBA with BA at or below .250 (M.Bishop in 1930, Mickey Tettleton with 97 BB in 339 official AB's, Gene Tenace with 124 BB in 420 official At bats. If someone had 450 official PA and a .250 average they would have 113 hits. For that player to have a .400 OBA average, they would need 112 BB's to get up to a .400 OBA. That would mean they would have the same number of Walks as hits. Most guys in the history of baseball (99%+) who have OBA of .400 have very high batting averages.

Your math is off, but on the right track. In order to hit .250 / .400 with 450 PA, a playrr would need 90 hits and 90 walks.

I counted 5 times since 1990, and there were several close ones. It's not a common thing, but my point wasn't about the precise numbers, it was more about the fact that there are hitters with relatively low BAs that get on base with much higher frequency than some with high BAs. Enough to outweigh the added value of the extra singles, in some cases.

Talk about completely missing the point. Whether a guy like that does or does not exist is beyond the point. Extreme examples are laid out to make a point, to argue the theoritical side of what goes into the stats to reach a deeper understanding of them.

There is also the possibility that many of those walks were either intentional or strategic pitching around a guy in certain situations, and did not necessarily benefit the team. There are a lot of variables in trying to evaluate all of these stats.

There is also the possibility that many of those walks were either intentional or strategic pitching around a guy in certain situations, and did not necessarily benefit the team. There are a lot of variables in trying to evaluate all of these stats.

Stabbed by Foulke.

Yes and usually when a player is IBB (not all the time but often) it is because he is a dangerous hitter. A guy who hits a lot of HR's and hits a lot of doubles. Theres a difference between facing a player who is hitting .318 but can't slug and a guy who is batting .310 and can't slug.

Those are the respected batting average for Jose Iglesias and David Ortiz. Walks are not as valuables as hits, but they do hold value. But batting average only averages the amount OF hits and not the quality of the hit. Now SLG doesn't take into account hitting with runners in scoring position but it does weight singles, doubles, triples, and HR's.

a guy who hits .300 hit 60 XBH is worth more than a guy who hits .300 with 30 XBH. It's not that I don't find AVG indicative, I just think it's better to look at SLG% and par it up with OBP%. Which AVG is a function of OBP%

We can argue all day how looking at one stat alone can be very misleading and this is true for ALL of the stats. The basic premise that has been laid out by the anti BA people isn't that BA isn't a very good stat to look at only that people tend to put more weight into it.

Do some people weight OBP to heavily? or perhaps over estimate how much a high OBP can make up for a lower AVG? yes, but it seems me that it is much much more common that AVG is the overhyped stat.

People who tend to look at and value OBP, very commonly weight it with SLG% which combined is a much better measure of the offensive contributions a player brings to the plate than AVG alone. There is an old school of thought (not everyone) where people tend to look at a very small window of numbers, and AVG tends to be the prime suspect of those people....along with WINS.

I counted 5 times since 1990, and there were several close ones. It's not a common thing, but my point wasn't about the precise numbers, it was more about the fact that there are hitters with relatively low BAs that get on base with much higher frequency than some with high BAs. Enough to outweigh the added value of the extra singles, in some cases.

Ricky did it twice - '96 and '97. Also, if you extended your search back one more year, Jack Clark did it in 1989.

Talk about completely missing the point. Whether a guy like that does or does not exist is beyond the point. Extreme examples are laid out to make a point, to argue the theoritical side of what goes into the stats to reach a deeper understanding of them.

Yes, and ADG took my point literally. And, on top of that, he got teh facts wrong.

I counted 5 times since 1990, and there were several close ones. It's not a common thing, but my point wasn't about the precise numbers, it was more about the fact that there are hitters with relatively low BAs that get on base with much higher frequency than some with high BAs. Enough to outweigh the added value of the extra singles, in some cases.

Ricky did it twice - '96 and '97. Also, if you extended your search back one more year, Jack Clark did it in 1989.

ADG sure taught you a lesson, Moon :)

So, 6 times since 1990 and 7 times since 1989.

Seven times in 25 years.

That's about once every 3 years. Hardly impossible.

My point stands on its merits and its theory. There are a heck of a lot of batters who do not hit for high average, but get enough walks to make their OBP significantly higher than some hitters with very good BAs.

Enough to sometimes offset the greater value of the extra hits player A has over player B.